Rocky and squad
If our subscribers want to reply to your post they will and if they don't they won't, s'intirely up to them. The mission this month is to answer David's question that's all. A case study seems like a valid way to do it and you sound like a good subject. There are other valid ways to answer the question and I hope nobody will be put off exploring other paths just
because a few of us have taken up this one. John and I apparently reacted similarly to your post. I actually started off writing a well meaning load of analysis but then trashed it because I figured you probably knew all the
theory anyway and because I can hardly advise you on how to solve the dilemma when I can't solve it myself either. Nevertheless I feel an almost missionary zeal to help you.
Rocky:
>3. I am reminded of a philosophy professor at the University of Kansas who,
>sitting glibly on the corner of his desk one day, pronounced that he'd once
>been like many of us - pondering the mysteries of existence - but that now
he >enjoyed mowing the lawn and drinking iced tea. He said those questions
turned >into quagmires and that he'd decided to move back into the real world.
Having >done that, he said he was infinitely happier and better adjusted to boot.
That's very scary. But just because they turned into quagmires for him it doesn't mean they will for everyone. He might have been thick.
For the logo on the Lila Squad webpage I chose a little spaceship racing off to explore the galaxy. That's how it seems to me. If you're an intellectual person then social and biological pleasures are never going to be entirely enough for you,
the adventure of the mind is always going to be the ultimate challenge. Also, I get hayfever and caffeine (even in tea) makes me feel sick.
John is concerned about mistaking the MOQ for therapy. Well let's take Rocky's difficulty in balancing Dynamic and static as a moral problem then. (heh, let's see you argue that the MOQ isn't about morality;-)
>I must point out that my original post
>asked how one can simultaneously maintain a life of responsible citizenship
>and a remain engaged in the enterprise of really living?
Maybe I went a bit far in my last post;-) But I'm serious about slacking off at work. Of course I don't really mean to the extent that you jeopardize your career, but something has to give doesn't it? Having a good job and being a responsible citizen are largely social values. If you want more time for your intellect you're going to have to cut back on them to a certain extent. The social level exists to support the intellectual level, if it's suppressing it then it needs to be weakened.
I think that's the classic MOQ answer. Static that suppresses Dynamic is immoral and it's got to go. This also begs the question of whether or not there has to be a trade off between the levels. The three characters in LILA were each dominated by one level and were pretty lacking in the other two. In ZMM Pirsig basically sacrificed his social level entirely for the sake of his intellect. By the end of the book all three characters have Dynamically broken free from static patterns but it's at the expense of the levels below. Lila, the repentant sinner, isn't going to be half as sexy as Lila, the goodtime girl. Rigel's social standing will be lower if he marries Lila (and, his mother is going to have kittens).
>Ultimately, the question I have raised is very much about not
>intellectualizing on some hypothetical ideal state of existence, but
>grounding the MOQ into normal everyday life. And not just my life but yours
>as well. After all, I presume we all have commitments that are, on some
>level, at odds with our own personal vision for what we'd like our life to
>be. Yet it's those commitments that ultimately create the fabric of society
>itself. I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that family or society could
>exist in the absence of those commitments.
Not all of them, but definitely some of them if you want to make room for Dynamic Quality.
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:48 GMT